Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2018
- Messages
- 1,932
Orenchi ni Kita Onna Kishi to Inakagurashi Surukotoninatta Ken - Vol. 4 Ch. 27 - Young hero
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
@countrymage No one is arguing about whether or not they cared. Do you not understand the discussion? Is the word "sensible' too big for you? We're not aruging about what they did or didn't do, or what they even 'should' do really. The quesiton is "Is what they did the 'sensible'(logical) way to do it?" And the answer to that is simply no. It is close, but there are clear flaws they could've fixed and had the power to fix, which means they -decided- to do things a more senseless way.
@WillLi The statement that was confused me was you saying you're not talking about releasing her then continuing on, in same sentence, that there's is no problem with 'that'. You didn't say 'I'm not talking about quarantine, it's no problem'. You said 'not talking about releasing her, that's no problem'. Do you see the difference?
If you didn't expect them to be sensible in the first place, then why criticize them for not being sensible? If you expect them to be senseless, then what is your problem with them treating Chris like shit?
If you didn't expect them to be sensible in the first place, then why criticize them for not being sensible? If you expect them to be senseless, then what is your problem with them treating Chris like shit?
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2018
- Messages
- 1,932
@WillLi I'm saying you're looking for sense in the wrong places. This quarantine, and all the tests, were decided by committee, of people that likely left the country for the duration of the experiment. If she blows up, she blew up, they will find a way to spin it, so it wasn't their fault. If she kills herself, they can do an autopsy to see if there is a magic organ, or something that explains her powers. But she is also speaking Japanese, so they think she may act Japanese, where she won't cause trouble as long as they tell her all this necessary.
Remember the only reason they gave her a cellphone, is because one of her nurses got worried enough to break protocol. Worried for Chris, or for her own life, is hard to tell.
Remember the only reason they gave her a cellphone, is because one of her nurses got worried enough to break protocol. Worried for Chris, or for her own life, is hard to tell.
@cor3zone I didn't criticize them for being senseless. I literally made the statement "I don't expect the author to write sensible governments"
In this thread I never really criticized them for being senseless I simply stated that they were, and any discussion about it was because you and Bladestorm confronted me about my statement about me not expecting sensible governments from this.
@Countrymage so your argument to "they are being senseless" is "They are senseless"...wow that's so amazing. I am not 'looking' for sense or anything dingbat. I am literally stating a fact that they are acting senselessly. Unless you can tell me they are not being senseless and prove it, you are barking up the wrong tree. And the grounds for sensible is not adding needless risk to a situation. The key is needless, meaning that any risk you do add must give some kind of benefit in return.
The problem you have to tackle is "what is the benefit of not caring about her mental health?" if there is no benefit, than not caring for it is a senseless decision, because there is clear risk to not caring for it, even if it is only a risk to the nurses. (which requires the assumption that the government can actually contain Chris if she wanted to get out)
If you can not answer that question you need to argue with someone else because you're either 'wrong' or arguing about the wrong thing. Don't at me till you have an answer.
and then I was confronted by blade as if I didn't know what I was talking about
And then you jumped into the conversation
In this thread I never really criticized them for being senseless I simply stated that they were, and any discussion about it was because you and Bladestorm confronted me about my statement about me not expecting sensible governments from this.
@Countrymage so your argument to "they are being senseless" is "They are senseless"...wow that's so amazing. I am not 'looking' for sense or anything dingbat. I am literally stating a fact that they are acting senselessly. Unless you can tell me they are not being senseless and prove it, you are barking up the wrong tree. And the grounds for sensible is not adding needless risk to a situation. The key is needless, meaning that any risk you do add must give some kind of benefit in return.
The problem you have to tackle is "what is the benefit of not caring about her mental health?" if there is no benefit, than not caring for it is a senseless decision, because there is clear risk to not caring for it, even if it is only a risk to the nurses. (which requires the assumption that the government can actually contain Chris if she wanted to get out)
If you can not answer that question you need to argue with someone else because you're either 'wrong' or arguing about the wrong thing. Don't at me till you have an answer.
@WillLi Your first post wasn't criticism, you're right. And you never once said 'they suck cuz they're not sensible', absolutely correct. You did criticize their decisions though, like not offering mental health care, and called them senseless. If senselessness is expected, there's no need criticize actions caused by it. Just a waste of time.
I offered my point, in a short paragraph, and ended with retorical questions. Sorry that wasn't clear. You then responded with a long paragraph saying they did stupid (read:senseless) things that might anger a human. I then responded that they don't really have to see her as human, and so on. Now, here we are. I never wanted this debate, I just made a quick comment. But I'm not one to back down from an argument either, and it seems neither are you. You reply, I reply. This will continue until we come to an understanding, or one gives up. This discussion is as much on you as on me.
Edit: sorry quick comment on your reply to Countrymage: they don't care about her mental health, so taking care of it is no benefit. For all they know she might start raging anyways.
I offered my point, in a short paragraph, and ended with retorical questions. Sorry that wasn't clear. You then responded with a long paragraph saying they did stupid (read:senseless) things that might anger a human. I then responded that they don't really have to see her as human, and so on. Now, here we are. I never wanted this debate, I just made a quick comment. But I'm not one to back down from an argument either, and it seems neither are you. You reply, I reply. This will continue until we come to an understanding, or one gives up. This discussion is as much on you as on me.
Edit: sorry quick comment on your reply to Countrymage: they don't care about her mental health, so taking care of it is no benefit. For all they know she might start raging anyways.
@cor3zone I calling a senseless action senseless isn't criticism. And you are mistaking something greatly here.
Also there is a difference between 'senseless' and stupid. Stupid is as one would expect, but for senseless we'll use what you said about my reply to countrymage. You say there is no benefit in that. 'Stupid' would be being a jerk for no reason. "Senseless" is being a jerk when objectively not being a jerk would benefit you. And there is benefit to caring for her mental health, reducing the risk of her turning on you. Granted it's not a guarantee by any means, but being on her good side means it's less likely she will turn on you, unless she's already decided that from the get go. Also makes it less likely she tries to commit suicide, and also, it doesn't run the risk of "Her magic relies on her mental state and now that she's depressed she can't cast magic" and thus making them unable to experiment. The benefit is not that it grants you something new, but reduces the chances of the bad things. (also yes keeping her in a normal mental state is better because they do know for a fact that in normal mental state she can cast, but the didn't know if she could while depressed. And while it would serve to increase their knowledge about her power's activation, they wouldn't be able to see her cast anymore and they haven't finished testing her magic, so they'd be SOL.)
You are assuming I'm continuing on and on about this. The only reason it's been brought up is because you and blade asked for it from me. My initial post said "gave up" At the time of the isolation arc, I was expecting sensible governments, but because of how that ended, I stopped expecting it. My post so far have not been criticism but an evaluation with as much context as necessary to validate my statement about them being 'senseless' that I've been constantly badgered about, despite everyone seeming to agree they are acting senseless.
Also there is a difference between 'senseless' and stupid. Stupid is as one would expect, but for senseless we'll use what you said about my reply to countrymage. You say there is no benefit in that. 'Stupid' would be being a jerk for no reason. "Senseless" is being a jerk when objectively not being a jerk would benefit you. And there is benefit to caring for her mental health, reducing the risk of her turning on you. Granted it's not a guarantee by any means, but being on her good side means it's less likely she will turn on you, unless she's already decided that from the get go. Also makes it less likely she tries to commit suicide, and also, it doesn't run the risk of "Her magic relies on her mental state and now that she's depressed she can't cast magic" and thus making them unable to experiment. The benefit is not that it grants you something new, but reduces the chances of the bad things. (also yes keeping her in a normal mental state is better because they do know for a fact that in normal mental state she can cast, but the didn't know if she could while depressed. And while it would serve to increase their knowledge about her power's activation, they wouldn't be able to see her cast anymore and they haven't finished testing her magic, so they'd be SOL.)
@WillLi If you "gave up" you wouldn't have replied so many times, IMHO.
I'm sorry for using confusing words. I was thinking of the 'senseless' kind of stupid.
Calling an action senseless is criticism, regardless whether it's true.
Knowing how her mental state affects her magic is immensely valuable. If she stops being able, they can then rectify their methods to correct and make her able again. After all, it's shown they are willing to adapt, after she got violent.
I'm sorry for using confusing words. I was thinking of the 'senseless' kind of stupid.
Calling an action senseless is criticism, regardless whether it's true.
Correct. They have no guarantee she won't turn on them, but she did comply to being studied while in a normal mental state. Remember, to them she's alien. Meaning any data they get about her is valuable. How does she behave under stress, and so on. Does she get violent? Good to know. Like I've said, they knew and accepted the risks.
Knowing how her mental state affects her magic is immensely valuable. If she stops being able, they can then rectify their methods to correct and make her able again. After all, it's shown they are willing to adapt, after she got violent.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
- Messages
- 2,115
@mahtan
Yes, yes it does. An accusation is a claim against someone that you have not proven. When you have actually proven the accusation, by definition, you are no longer claiming or accusing the other party.
I'll explain:
Yes, yes it does. An accusation is a claim against someone that you have not proven. When you have actually proven the accusation, by definition, you are no longer claiming or accusing the other party.
WRONG. There is a big difference in just "mere" nobility and someone in the royal line of succession. The fact that you don't think there is when this is almost common knowledge is... concerning... If you don't know something like this, I question what else you would be overlooking.
I'll explain:
a noble is part of the sociopolitical power structure in an aristocracy system. They are given land and titles and in return they are expected to provide soldiers, crops, trade, ect. to fulfill a "noblesse oblige" of some sort. The higher ends of the structure like like Earls and Dukes start to get involved in politics, foreign relations and whatnot in a measurable scale. But, at the end of the day, they are servants of the crown, the king, or the royal family. They are bestowed power BY the royal family and thus answer to them.
Here's where you're wrong: when you kidnap a daughter of a Viscount, that's like, say, taking the "Secretary of Agriculture"s daughter hostage. That's serious, don't get me wrong, but realistically nothing terrible will happen to the kingdom if she dies and the royal family can sacrifice her willingly if need be.
WHEN THE DAUGHTER OF A KING IS KIDNAPPED... That's like kidnapping the daughter of the President or Prime Minister or something. In fact, it's even worse. Because our politicians are generally elected to office. A Princess, because she popped out of a very special vagina and the king made her, she is therefore possibly in line of succession to the throne. Meaning if the rest of her family dies... she's possible the next ruler. When you take someone like that hostage, you are holding a knife to the throat of a country. That is not fucking around. It's very, very, very unlikely for a kidnapping of a noble's daughter to start a war on its own. Kidnapping a member of the royal family? Another story. The stakes are ENTIRELY different and higher.
Is there anything to suggest she ran away form battle? No. She and her men met enemy soldiers on their way to deliver the message and were split up. If she was captured or killed, there wouldn't be much of a sign of her.
So... I would VERY much like you to showcase how it looks like she ran away from battle that doesn't involve "well, she's not here and didn't show up." Messengers being killed while attempting to go through lines of battle is... entirely fucking commonplace in such scenarios and times. And, in fact, that almost happened to her.
1.) It wasn't a "safe zone." The safe zone in this case was right through enemy lines. And I explained this before how sieges work and how the structures are surrounded and the enemy spreads out to enclose as much as possible of the defensive structures, so none of this "but the enemy wouldn't be there" nonsense - they would, in order to prevent things just like this of people making it out of the fort/keep... Don't believe me? isn't the fucking fact that she ran into JUST SUCH A SCOUTING/AUXILIARY FORCE and almost died proof positive enough that you're mistaken on this "but it was safe" bit? Again: TELL THE ENEMY THAT.
2.) This whole "but they declare soldiers deserters when they can't be found/are mission" is also... such weapons grade ultra-pure HORSESHIT that I can't even fathom where you came up with it. And I'll disprove it beyond a shadow of a fucking doubt right now.
Does the name "BOWE BERDAHL" ring a bell? If you're so well knowledge on this, I guarantee you it SHOULD. Remember the U.S. soldier that deserted and was "captured" by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2009 and was released in a prisoner exchange program in 2014 under President Obama's administration? And how controversial all this shit was? Well, guess what? HE WASN'T CALLED A DESERTER IN THE FIRST MONTH. And there was actual evidence he was at least AWOL if not deserting during that time. In any case there was a fuckload more evidence against him being a potential deserter than there was ANYTHING about Chris in this story.
To give you an idea, when some soldier in the U.S. military is unaccounted for - whether in combat or not - and there is no positive location for their whereabouts and there's no proof of their death or capture, a DUSTWUN is issued - which literally means "duty status, whereabouts unknown." In this timeframe, which is only supposed to last TEN (10) DAYS there are searches and investigations conducted to find the mission servicemember - regardless of whatever the fuck did or did not happen, whether dead or alive. The only purpose is to find, and hopefully get back safe and sound, said servicemember. That's it. Well, despite Mr. Bergdahl being involved in... interesting events... and all evidence pointing to him literally just walking out of the fucking post in the middle of the night... This DUSTWUN went on for FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS. Almost five times what it's supposed to last. Guess what? At no point in this timeframe was he charged for desertion or wanted for desertion. In fact, that didn't happen until much fucking later. I shit you fucking not, he WAS EVEN PROMOTED IN ABSENTIA DURING HIS TIME HE WAS MISSING. Yeah. He went missing on June 30, 2009 in the dead of night (which is a big no-no in case you were wondering, you don't just walk off the fucking base) after sending off some rather interesting emails to his parents in the weeks and days leading up to him going missing. July 1st he declared "missing/whereabouts unknown" and on July 3rd this changed to "missing." Later in July of 2009 the Taliban released a video of what was thought to be him in this custody and they gave some ridiculous ass claim like "he got drunk in town and we captured him." In June 2010, a year after his walking off the base (read: big no-no) and apparently getting captured, he was promoted from PFC to Specialist. Obviously he was not declared a deserter in this time frame despite some evidence showcasing he might have intended to do just that.
If you actually think that soldiers just missing are grounds for being declared "deserters"... I don't know how to refer to that and not sound like an asshole. So I'll just let you know: that's fucking silly. Almost every professional military has/had "Missing"/"Missing in Action" (and considering that this was during a battle, Chris would qualify as "MIA" and this is even more generous because it's assumed something bad might have happened to them instead of them just walking off and deserting). And they have for some time. Now... Maybe you come back with an example of "I'll have you know the military of the glorious country of Belize will declare you a deserter if you're even a single minute late to morning drill!" or something. Great. But the U.S. is the biggest backer of NATO and many countries borrow or adapt such principles of doctrine and operation from the U.S. military because it's well constructed as far as doctrine, chain of command and policies go and because it makes easier integration in working with American military forces. So... I'm honestly not interested in countries whose militaries do just declare soldiers missing to be deserters on a whim without evidence... Because it's fucking silly. NATO doesn't, let alone America, the UK, Germany, ect.
"There is no indication of she being dead"
...And? I have bad news for your argument: that doesn't matter. A lack of evidence does not mean you make a decision. That's fucking stupid to do as a military. And, surprise, surprise, most don't.
Also, I'm curious: what fucking indication would there be if she was taken prisoner? The confused little boy with comprehension issues you were defending earlier tried to point out she might've been ransomed to answer this... but unfortunately these are SAVAGE MONSTERS and she was sure the orcs would kill and rape her, and if she was lucky in that order. And we see in this chapter just how humane the enemy seems to be. So... again, what, if they capture her would they leave a fucking apology letter on the ground? And, again, why would it matter? Well, it wouldn't.
You're putting yourself into a false dichotomy "either or" option here and that is why your argument is dead and null and void right out of the gate. There is nothing that guarantees that there would be a trace of her left behind if she was killed or captured. That is... and I know you hate this word, but it is fact and truth, AN ASSUMPTION. It stands to reason that if she was captured they'd bring her with them. Not much evidence left behind there. And even if she's killed - and again this is like the 3rd fucking time I've mentioned this - had search parties of hundreds/thousands of people looking for missing individuals and with the benefit of search helicopters and cadaver dogs and still sometimes found not a SINGLE TRACE or someone.
...Do you think they disappeared, POOF, and went isekai, too? Or is it more likely that we just didn't find anything? After all, bears live in the woods and die all the time. When was the last time you saw a bear corpse? Bodies in the wilderness don't tend to stay pristine. Grizzly (Ha. Ha... Ha.), I know, but it's the truth.
So this "they haven't found any trace of her = she deserted" is a false dichotomy and a flawed assertion. Dare I say... even an assumption. [OMINOUS THUNDER CLAP]
You have a very charming idea of how combat and warfare is conducted. This is some major fucking hubris, too. Everyone that was ever taken by surprise probably thought they were "in a safe zone" and "the enemy wasn't there" too. And this is a verified assumption on your part. Sorry, but it is.
And it's demonstrably proven incorrect. Sieges, like of a fort in this story, would involve an enemy force encircling much of the defensive fortifications in order to prevent people - like messengers - getting out or getting into the defensive structure for reasons just like this. You have scouts, you have auxiliary troops. They encircle and surround and set up outer perimeters. And before you retort with that line I bet my left fucking hand that you're already thinking of using of something along the lines of "WELL THAT'S JUST AN ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT!" - it's not. The very fact that she encountered said troops just as I said that they would be there is proof positive you're wrong. There is no discussion to be had here. You are simply dead flat 100% fucking wrong.
So please, please, just stop with this "it was safe" horseshit. It wasn't. It wouldn't have been. You're being too naive to take seriously when you do this. Stop.
LOL, fuck no. And as I've shown you were already wrong on your assertion that modern militaries still do this. Why should I trust what you have to say here? Frankly, I shouldn't. And I don't.
Here's where you're wrong: when you kidnap a daughter of a Viscount, that's like, say, taking the "Secretary of Agriculture"s daughter hostage. That's serious, don't get me wrong, but realistically nothing terrible will happen to the kingdom if she dies and the royal family can sacrifice her willingly if need be.
WHEN THE DAUGHTER OF A KING IS KIDNAPPED... That's like kidnapping the daughter of the President or Prime Minister or something. In fact, it's even worse. Because our politicians are generally elected to office. A Princess, because she popped out of a very special vagina and the king made her, she is therefore possibly in line of succession to the throne. Meaning if the rest of her family dies... she's possible the next ruler. When you take someone like that hostage, you are holding a knife to the throat of a country. That is not fucking around. It's very, very, very unlikely for a kidnapping of a noble's daughter to start a war on its own. Kidnapping a member of the royal family? Another story. The stakes are ENTIRELY different and higher.
Did anyone see her run away from battle? No. Otherwise they wouldn't have waited a month to declare her a deserter.
Is there anything to suggest she ran away form battle? No. She and her men met enemy soldiers on their way to deliver the message and were split up. If she was captured or killed, there wouldn't be much of a sign of her.
So... I would VERY much like you to showcase how it looks like she ran away from battle that doesn't involve "well, she's not here and didn't show up." Messengers being killed while attempting to go through lines of battle is... entirely fucking commonplace in such scenarios and times. And, in fact, that almost happened to her.
Nope. Wrong on multiple accounts.
1.) It wasn't a "safe zone." The safe zone in this case was right through enemy lines. And I explained this before how sieges work and how the structures are surrounded and the enemy spreads out to enclose as much as possible of the defensive structures, so none of this "but the enemy wouldn't be there" nonsense - they would, in order to prevent things just like this of people making it out of the fort/keep... Don't believe me? isn't the fucking fact that she ran into JUST SUCH A SCOUTING/AUXILIARY FORCE and almost died proof positive enough that you're mistaken on this "but it was safe" bit? Again: TELL THE ENEMY THAT.
2.) This whole "but they declare soldiers deserters when they can't be found/are mission" is also... such weapons grade ultra-pure HORSESHIT that I can't even fathom where you came up with it. And I'll disprove it beyond a shadow of a fucking doubt right now.
Does the name "BOWE BERDAHL" ring a bell? If you're so well knowledge on this, I guarantee you it SHOULD. Remember the U.S. soldier that deserted and was "captured" by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2009 and was released in a prisoner exchange program in 2014 under President Obama's administration? And how controversial all this shit was? Well, guess what? HE WASN'T CALLED A DESERTER IN THE FIRST MONTH. And there was actual evidence he was at least AWOL if not deserting during that time. In any case there was a fuckload more evidence against him being a potential deserter than there was ANYTHING about Chris in this story.
To give you an idea, when some soldier in the U.S. military is unaccounted for - whether in combat or not - and there is no positive location for their whereabouts and there's no proof of their death or capture, a DUSTWUN is issued - which literally means "duty status, whereabouts unknown." In this timeframe, which is only supposed to last TEN (10) DAYS there are searches and investigations conducted to find the mission servicemember - regardless of whatever the fuck did or did not happen, whether dead or alive. The only purpose is to find, and hopefully get back safe and sound, said servicemember. That's it. Well, despite Mr. Bergdahl being involved in... interesting events... and all evidence pointing to him literally just walking out of the fucking post in the middle of the night... This DUSTWUN went on for FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS. Almost five times what it's supposed to last. Guess what? At no point in this timeframe was he charged for desertion or wanted for desertion. In fact, that didn't happen until much fucking later. I shit you fucking not, he WAS EVEN PROMOTED IN ABSENTIA DURING HIS TIME HE WAS MISSING. Yeah. He went missing on June 30, 2009 in the dead of night (which is a big no-no in case you were wondering, you don't just walk off the fucking base) after sending off some rather interesting emails to his parents in the weeks and days leading up to him going missing. July 1st he declared "missing/whereabouts unknown" and on July 3rd this changed to "missing." Later in July of 2009 the Taliban released a video of what was thought to be him in this custody and they gave some ridiculous ass claim like "he got drunk in town and we captured him." In June 2010, a year after his walking off the base (read: big no-no) and apparently getting captured, he was promoted from PFC to Specialist. Obviously he was not declared a deserter in this time frame despite some evidence showcasing he might have intended to do just that.
If you actually think that soldiers just missing are grounds for being declared "deserters"... I don't know how to refer to that and not sound like an asshole. So I'll just let you know: that's fucking silly. Almost every professional military has/had "Missing"/"Missing in Action" (and considering that this was during a battle, Chris would qualify as "MIA" and this is even more generous because it's assumed something bad might have happened to them instead of them just walking off and deserting). And they have for some time. Now... Maybe you come back with an example of "I'll have you know the military of the glorious country of Belize will declare you a deserter if you're even a single minute late to morning drill!" or something. Great. But the U.S. is the biggest backer of NATO and many countries borrow or adapt such principles of doctrine and operation from the U.S. military because it's well constructed as far as doctrine, chain of command and policies go and because it makes easier integration in working with American military forces. So... I'm honestly not interested in countries whose militaries do just declare soldiers missing to be deserters on a whim without evidence... Because it's fucking silly. NATO doesn't, let alone America, the UK, Germany, ect.
"There is no indication of she being dead"
...And? I have bad news for your argument: that doesn't matter. A lack of evidence does not mean you make a decision. That's fucking stupid to do as a military. And, surprise, surprise, most don't.
Also, I'm curious: what fucking indication would there be if she was taken prisoner? The confused little boy with comprehension issues you were defending earlier tried to point out she might've been ransomed to answer this... but unfortunately these are SAVAGE MONSTERS and she was sure the orcs would kill and rape her, and if she was lucky in that order. And we see in this chapter just how humane the enemy seems to be. So... again, what, if they capture her would they leave a fucking apology letter on the ground? And, again, why would it matter? Well, it wouldn't.
You're putting yourself into a false dichotomy "either or" option here and that is why your argument is dead and null and void right out of the gate. There is nothing that guarantees that there would be a trace of her left behind if she was killed or captured. That is... and I know you hate this word, but it is fact and truth, AN ASSUMPTION. It stands to reason that if she was captured they'd bring her with them. Not much evidence left behind there. And even if she's killed - and again this is like the 3rd fucking time I've mentioned this - had search parties of hundreds/thousands of people looking for missing individuals and with the benefit of search helicopters and cadaver dogs and still sometimes found not a SINGLE TRACE or someone.
...Do you think they disappeared, POOF, and went isekai, too? Or is it more likely that we just didn't find anything? After all, bears live in the woods and die all the time. When was the last time you saw a bear corpse? Bodies in the wilderness don't tend to stay pristine. Grizzly (Ha. Ha... Ha.), I know, but it's the truth.
So this "they haven't found any trace of her = she deserted" is a false dichotomy and a flawed assertion. Dare I say... even an assumption. [OMINOUS THUNDER CLAP]
You have a very charming idea of how combat and warfare is conducted. This is some major fucking hubris, too. Everyone that was ever taken by surprise probably thought they were "in a safe zone" and "the enemy wasn't there" too. And this is a verified assumption on your part. Sorry, but it is.
And it's demonstrably proven incorrect. Sieges, like of a fort in this story, would involve an enemy force encircling much of the defensive fortifications in order to prevent people - like messengers - getting out or getting into the defensive structure for reasons just like this. You have scouts, you have auxiliary troops. They encircle and surround and set up outer perimeters. And before you retort with that line I bet my left fucking hand that you're already thinking of using of something along the lines of "WELL THAT'S JUST AN ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT!" - it's not. The very fact that she encountered said troops just as I said that they would be there is proof positive you're wrong. There is no discussion to be had here. You are simply dead flat 100% fucking wrong.
So please, please, just stop with this "it was safe" horseshit. It wasn't. It wouldn't have been. You're being too naive to take seriously when you do this. Stop.
.
LOL, fuck no. And as I've shown you were already wrong on your assertion that modern militaries still do this. Why should I trust what you have to say here? Frankly, I shouldn't. And I don't.
@cor3zone I gave up on expecting sensible governments in this manga, I didn't give up on defending myself or my reputation. Notice how I have not tried to say "things should change" or "this ruins the story" or anything like that. It has all been "They acted senselessly, here is why" I can still enjoy the story or debate other things, or even prove my point without ever expecting a sensible government out of this author.
As for the second thing, don't remember who I posted it to but if they "tried and failed" that is still enough to make them sensible, just their competency is in question. What is making them senseless is the fact they made a decision (though granted it turned out okay) that was contrary to their goal. And really it might not turn out okay, we don't really know if Chris harbors any ill will still. The incident isn't going to leave her mind soon so there is the possibility of this coming back to bite them later. And you are right about knowing her mental state being valuable, but there were ways they could go about that without risking retaliation or depression that could ruin the experiment. Yes it's possible they might not work, but there was no risk to trying those ways first. If they didn't work out then they could've tried the ruder methods. But if they did work out, then they possibly get the same info, maybe more, and she has a nicer memory of her dealings with the Japanese government.
As for the second thing, don't remember who I posted it to but if they "tried and failed" that is still enough to make them sensible, just their competency is in question. What is making them senseless is the fact they made a decision (though granted it turned out okay) that was contrary to their goal. And really it might not turn out okay, we don't really know if Chris harbors any ill will still. The incident isn't going to leave her mind soon so there is the possibility of this coming back to bite them later. And you are right about knowing her mental state being valuable, but there were ways they could go about that without risking retaliation or depression that could ruin the experiment. Yes it's possible they might not work, but there was no risk to trying those ways first. If they didn't work out then they could've tried the ruder methods. But if they did work out, then they possibly get the same info, maybe more, and she has a nicer memory of her dealings with the Japanese government.
@WillLi At least I never meant any ill towards you or your reputation, sorry if it seemed that way. I try to always address the argument itself.
Sorry, don't remember who, but someone made a good point. This is Japan. People are expected to shut up and take the crap. It's part of their culture. Makes sense they might want to know how much crap Chris'll take, how she can adapt to the Japanese mindset, if she is to stay there. That's just conjecture, though, and nothing suggests that was indeed the intention. Also, they were strapped for time. Can't confine her forever, so have to chose which data you want most. Which would be more useful to stave off disaster; how she behaves when happy, or when she's reached the breaking point?
Sorry, don't remember who, but someone made a good point. This is Japan. People are expected to shut up and take the crap. It's part of their culture. Makes sense they might want to know how much crap Chris'll take, how she can adapt to the Japanese mindset, if she is to stay there. That's just conjecture, though, and nothing suggests that was indeed the intention. Also, they were strapped for time. Can't confine her forever, so have to chose which data you want most. Which would be more useful to stave off disaster; how she behaves when happy, or when she's reached the breaking point?
@cor3zone There's one problem with that...well no I wouldn't say 'problem' but one thing stops it from being sensible. You mentioned they have limited time, which is true. But doesn't that make it more important to ensure that she has a good experience so that you can get her to voluntarily come back later? Cause there is no way they can analyze magic in a month, probably not even a year. So you're want her willingly coming back to help them study it, and not hating the experience.
@WillLi Very true. But the first time she complied wasn't really a great situation either. Strange people in weird outfits, demanding she be locked up. They might have thought she's just a pushover, if you disregard her power. She probably only complied for Kanji's sake, of course. Obviously they should know better now, after the violent episode in the hospital.
@cor3zone it's a different part of it than what I was talking about, but that's pretty much been my point the whole time. There are so many places that there is clearly ways to improve the situation for the government that didn't happen, it's obvious the author is writing for drama and not 'sense'. Granted it's still within 'believable' decisions and behavior, just it's easier to make a better decision.
@WillLi Of course the author is writing for drama, the whole epidemic panic screams drama. Doesn't make the government any less realistic. Plenty of drama in real-life politics. And of course it's easy to make a better decision, but since when has government been easy? But at this point we're just arguing pure politics, and I'd rather not go there.😅
@cor3zone well just remember, I'm not saying that it's not 'realistic' i use quotes because while it's possible for it to play out like in the book, I still believe they would do it differently, but that's just speculation. I never once thought it wasn't possible to go like this. Even when I called it unrealistic in the other chapters, which was extreme wording on my part, it's more that this just isn't the most likely outcome in my opinion.
So yeah, as long as you think something along the lines of "there were some obvious steps they could've taken that they should've known would've made a better outcome" then we pretty much agree. That's all my point was.
And we can discuss if the horse is the real hero and not the brother...cause I don't know how you can make a horse do flash step..unless there's like a skill system...it is an isekai after all.
So yeah, as long as you think something along the lines of "there were some obvious steps they could've taken that they should've known would've made a better outcome" then we pretty much agree. That's all my point was.
And we can discuss if the horse is the real hero and not the brother...cause I don't know how you can make a horse do flash step..unless there's like a skill system...it is an isekai after all.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2018
- Messages
- 1,932
@WillLi don't look over my comment, take one line out of context, and act like that was my whole argument. I never said anything was senseless, you did, I said "you are looking for sense in the wrong places" which still looks true, despite the length of your posts. You say undue risk, but on paper a few nurses, and one hospital building are just a small statistic. Even if she could generate a nuclear blast, while thinking her farm friends are in the same building, the blast will be nowhere near the people making the decisions that led to it.
@countrymage as you have failed to answer the question presented to you, you will receive no response greater than this; grow up and learn to debate before you try to.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2018
- Messages
- 1,348
@kaminomikan
Encouraging someone to kill themselves is a pretty big violation of 5.1, Be Civil. We have a zero tolerance for this type of behavior.
Please take a day off from commenting and consider how to post more thoughtfully in the future.
Thanks,
Zeph
Encouraging someone to kill themselves is a pretty big violation of 5.1, Be Civil. We have a zero tolerance for this type of behavior.
Please take a day off from commenting and consider how to post more thoughtfully in the future.
Thanks,
Zeph
Similar threads
